Some thoughts about ARMA2 AI, 3 months later.

AI in ARMA2 is globally a big step forward, compared to ARMA.

Yet there are many BIG problems and some of them date quite some years now, as they were original OFP "sins".

Let me expose some thoughts about it:

Threat evaluation & rushing

What Arma2 AI lacks completely is a proper threat evaluation phase.

In reality any military unit does some kind of target evaluation before engaging (if ROE permit).

Then it will or flank or keep position or retreat or ask for support ... depending on evaluated threat ...

In ArmA2 AI always engage/assault enemy on sight, even when outpowered. Once they get casualties they simply flee.

Group leaders always rush enemy and fall one by one like lemmings.

Also some AI features are a bit ridiculous, eg. the GUARD waypoint: units with a current GUARD waypoint will attack any enemy anywhere on the map and also in the case they know they can't harm it.

Spotting / target detection still flawed

In many circumstances AI is not able to detect nor target enemies properly.

Also AI has still problems in reacting quickly to hostiles in CQB and peeking around corners is done only occasionally (hence AI units still are mowed from flank at crossroads).

Concealement

Tall grass, smoke, fog should conceal from AI eyes. That's not happening.

AT Units useless

AT units are simply cannon fodder at the moment. Mostly their effort is unpredictable. What's sure is they will keep switching weapon till their last breath.

Unit Stance

The way AI choose stance / posture looks random, many times units stand, crouch and go prone intermittently

Pathfinding

It's just plain problematic now. Land vehicles and convoys work badly. Air units pathfinding is bad and there are serious issues with vehicles loading / unloading (especially for Helis in hot LZs).

Incomplete implemetations

Some AI features are incomplete: suppress command and find cover command does not work.

Findcover and sethidebehind functions are still "not implemented"

So far i've seen much effort in patches for fixing controller issues and minor problems,but i'd like to see some of these issues finally ironed out. I am the only one maybe ?

I am the only one maybe ?

You're not the only one... My main issue with the AI is that rushing crap. If BIS could fix that it will be a major improvement. Perhaps when the AI detects the enemy, he will go prone, scan the surroundings and if he detects more enemy soldiers than frendlies (lets say outnumbered 2-3 to 1) he will retreat.

You're not the only one... My main issue with the AI is that rushing crap. If BIS could fix that it will be a major improvement. Perhaps when the AI detects the enemy, he will go prone, scan the surroundings and if he detects more enemy soldiers than frendlies (lets say outnumbered 2-3 to 1) he will retreat.

Agree, what you say is basically what i name a basic threats evaluation procedure :)

Obviously it should consider at least other meaningful parameters, such as presence and number of enemy armor, air units, AA and AT and nearby friendly groups.

I've struggled to script this behaviour and was able to realize it to a certain degree, so definetely IT IS FEASIBLE.

SLX AI makes better use of cover :)

well, lets look at real war shall we?

Bastogne :> did you see the Americans retreating? they were lying in icy trenches that were getting blown up to hell, most died, the only reason they lived was reinforcements, NOT RETREATING, retreating wasnt an option, if there wasnt any reinforcments they would of died, simple as that, they WOULD OF NOT HAVE lived through that last few days, but they still sat there as ordered to even though they knew they would most likely die. The Generals just kept sending them supplies while the men just died. What little supplies they had. That fight took days and days, would you really want Arma 2 missions to take days and days in real life time? your kidding yourself if you did.

Omoha Beach :> Americans RUNNING at machine guns that killed 1000's of them, alot of Americans DIED, like lemmings, exactly how you described as an issue with Arma 2 's Ai. If you survived it , you were lucky. The objective was to take the beach NOT retreat from it, besides where would you retreat to , once you were on the beach???????

Normandy :> getting dropped behind enemy lines WHILE enemy was shooting them in the sky, heaps died just jumping out of the plane, LIKE LEMMINGS. what retreat? Their job was to get behind enemy lines, alive or dead.

Oh yeah dont get me started on crazy kamikaze American Vietnam missions that they did. Where they would lliterally die by the 10's of hundreds just on one mission, because they were to deep in the forests to go anywhere. Some guys would just sit in thier bunkers for days trying to hold out until help arrived. AGAIN not much retreating going on. Especially if there's nowhere to go. Oh yeah not to mention the great American killing each other accidently with thier own airstrikes. In real life your own Ai can be crap too,lol. JKS :)

It really depends on the mission and what it is. If your mission is go and attack that village then thats your mission, retreating isnt really an option,ITS your job and yeah you'll probably die in real life too, unless you have reinforcements your waiting for to take your place. All depends on your numbers and how the mission is set out. if you have 100 guys and they have 20 then 80% of you will probably live, the other 20% will most likely be dead or wounded. If its 50/50, the guys attacking are probably more likely to die in enemy territory, because the locals know the area better.

Try this in the editor, set your waypoints up to COMBAT,Limited movement, and sentry, Set up LOADS of waypoints every few metres or so and get them to wait there for 600 seconds (thats 10 minutes BTW) for the very last waypoint of your Ai move waypoint OR set the waypoints up so the Ai only moves if certain targets are dead or detroyed ! (alive Tank1). You will find the Ai moving VERy VERy VERY slow. Try that in the editor... That doesnt meen your guys wont die but it will, or SHOULD stop them moving and doing dumb stuff until the coast is clear.

I don't know.

Created a scenario in the editor and assaulted the town with 3 companions. Found 4 AI I had palnted in the town had moved and were lying prone behind a stone wall waiting in ambush for us to walk past them.

Told my unit to Hold Fire as I wanted to get into an advetageous firing position and was able to creep up behind them , issued the command Fire at Will and they wer obliterated.

Pretty damn good AI if you ask me.

Only time I've had a chopper crash was when it ran out of way points and instructions. If you make the last way point a WAIT it will fly off there and do just that.

Driving .. well that's another matter altogether but then again , after driving around this town for so long , they don't seem all that bad either.:p

Found 4 AI I had palnted in the town had moved and were lying prone behind a stone wall waiting in ambush for us to walk past them.

Lying in an ambush or lying in cover, or just randomly lying somewhere? ;)

Concealement

Tall grass, smoke, fog should conceal from AI eyes. That's not happening.

Yes it is.

I agree with Fabrizio's assessment almost 100%.

However, I will argue that in the end the only sensible form of play is players versus players. You can fight AI when you learn the game. You can fight AI to have some fun from the built-in scenarios (campaign). But in the end no AI compares to a real human opponent. That's true for virtually all games: you play against your computer (or in coop) to the point where you think you're a master of the universe, then you go on-line and you get your ass kicked so badly that you realize you've got to learn everything from the beginning.

So my advice: ditch the AI, start fighting some real opponents.

(That, of course, doesn't make up for all the most basic shortcomings that the game still has even three months after release. But there's another thread on the forums that discusses Bohemia's laziness and lack of respect for its customers.)

@nyran125

You can’t be serious. Do you think that is more realistic for the AI to attack blindly in any situation. Only a poor commander would give the order to attack if he is vastly outnumbered. Oh and your examples only prove my point, the attacker will only attack if he has more troops and after a lot of planning.

@BeerHunter

Of course they acted smartly. You told them what to do…

Concealement

Tall grass, smoke, fog should conceal from AI eyes. That's not happening.

Yes it is.

It's both a little bit right. Grass makes it harder for the AI to detect enemies, but not in enough. The AI still has vision if they come in a certain range, even if you don't move. There is another thread about that.

The suggestions above are very good. If most of them get implemented/fixed properly the game will be much more enjoyable. The bug fixes until now didn't focus enough on such things.

well, lets look at real war shall we?

Bastogne :> did you see the Americans retreating?

It really depends on the mission and what it is. If your mission is go and attack that village then thats your mission, retreating isnt really an option,ITS your job and yeah you'll probably die in real life too, unless you have reinforcements your waiting for to take your place. All depends on your numbers and how the mission is set out. if you have 100 guys and they have 20 then 80% of you will probably live, the other 20% will most likely be dead or wounded. If its 50/50, the guys attacking are probably more likely to die in enemy territory, because the locals know the area better.

.

Your grasp of combat is severely flawed. In Bastogne the 101st didn't retreat because they were surrounded. When you are surrounded, you have no choice but to defend and wait for help. American doctrine is to always attack with 3 times the number of defenders. You must also take into account your support available and the composition of your forces and your enemy. I'm currently serving my third year of combat in Iraq, and your 50/50 and 100 to 20 comments are completely inaccurate. Since you started off by talking about "real war", it is quite possible to attack a 20 man force with 100 and come away with no casualties at all, just as it is possible to attack an even force in enemy territory and completely destroy them. I'm not even just refering to this war. Look at the Battle of the 73rd Easting in the first Gulf War. Completely dug in T-72s in their home country, on the defense against the 2nd Armored Cav. The Iraqis were decimated even though they had numbers, the local terrian, and a prepared defense going for them. Sheer numbers doesn't tell the full story and you are forgetting that American commanders are capable of making decisions for themselves. If you are ordered to take a town, and then your scouts report high enemy activity, you don't just blindy rush in and die "unless you have reinforcements to take your place". You would adjust your plan, and either obtain additional forces, or procure attack aviation or lay on indirect fire assets to tip the balance towards you. But hey, what do I know, I just lead armored forces in combat on a daily basis. Oh, and when I'm given a mission, I figure out a way to get it accomplished, not how to throw my soldiers lives away by adhering to the letter of the order. That is not the decision making progress that people pay the military to implement, they pay us to get the mission done. Nobody is more capable to make an assesement about how to do that than the guy in command on the site, not the general in his office. Mission planning is a fluid process and is revised at all levels, at all times, as long as the commander's intent is carried out (i.e. village seized, bridge destroyed, etc). I could care less how well "the locals know the area" if it's dark and he has no night vision assets, then my victory is halfway won. See how the equipment and situation can change things?

But there's another thread on the forums that discusses Bohemia's laziness and lack of respect for its customers.)

You're either blind, joking, or compairing BIS against an imaginary company. can't tell which. When you're loaded down, doing all you can, and it's not enough for the demanding crowd that doesn't even appreciate what they HAVE... I don't know, there is just no satisfying some people. Did you see the betas for heavens sake?! Just this week, was it two in three days? Something like that? Who else in the world does that? cry me a river.

It's both a little bit right. Grass makes it harder for the AI to detect enemies, but not in enough. The AI still has vision if they come in a certain range, even if you don't move. There is another thread about that.

Yeah, i made it. :p

Yeah, i made it. :p

Hi NeMeSis,

apart from the poll is there any demonstration (repro) that shows grass being actually an obstacle for AI sight ? I was never been able to build such a repro, i would be interested to know, but not willing to read the entire thread ;)

Thx.

Hi NeMeSis,

apart from the poll is there any demonstration (repro) that shows grass being actually an obstacle for AI sight ? I was never been able to build such a repro, i would be interested to know, but not willing to read the entire thread ;)

Thx.

Read just the first 2 posts, download the mission, do exactly what i did in the pics. Also, read the top post by Suma on the second page.

(Or just lay down in the grass and see when the AI notices you, then lay down on the runway and see if the AI notices you earlier. Though i also showed that in the pics)

well, lets look at real war shall we?

Bastogne :> did you see the Americans retreating? they were lying in icy trenches that were getting blown up to hell, most died, the only reason they lived was reinforcements, NOT RETREATING, retreating wasnt an option, if there wasnt any reinforcments they would of died, simple as that, they WOULD OF NOT HAVE lived through that last few days, but they still sat there as ordered to even though they knew they would most likely die. The Generals just kept sending them supplies while the men just died. What little supplies they had. That fight took days and days, would you really want Arma 2 missions to take days and days in real life time? your kidding yourself if you did.

Omoha Beach :> Americans RUNNING at machine guns that killed 1000's of them, alot of Americans DIED, like lemmings, exactly how you described as an issue with Arma 2 's Ai. If you survived it , you were lucky. The objective was to take the beach NOT retreat from it, besides where would you retreat to , once you were on the beach???????

Normandy :> getting dropped behind enemy lines WHILE enemy was shooting them in the sky, heaps died just jumping out of the plane, LIKE LEMMINGS. what retreat? Their job was to get behind enemy lines, alive or dead.

Oh yeah dont get me started on crazy kamikaze American Vietnam missions that they did. Where they would lliterally die by the 10's of hundreds just on one mission, because they were to deep in the forests to go anywhere. Some guys would just sit in thier bunkers for days trying to hold out until help arrived. AGAIN not much retreating going on. Especially if there's nowhere to go. Oh yeah not to mention the great American killing each other accidently with thier own airstrikes. In real life your own Ai can be crap too,lol. JKS :)

It really depends on the mission and what it is. If your mission is go and attack that village then thats your mission, retreating isnt really an option,ITS your job and yeah you'll probably die in real life too, unless you have reinforcements your waiting for to take your place. All depends on your numbers and how the mission is set out. if you have 100 guys and they have 20 then 80% of you will probably live, the other 20% will most likely be dead or wounded. If its 50/50, the guys attacking are probably more likely to die in enemy territory, because the locals know the area better.

Try this in the editor, set your waypoints up to COMBAT,Limited movement, and sentry, Set up LOADS of waypoints every few metres or so and get them to wait there for 600 seconds (thats 10 minutes BTW) for the very last waypoint of your Ai move waypoint OR set the waypoints up so the Ai only moves if certain targets are dead or detroyed ! (alive Tank1). You will find the Ai moving VERy VERy VERY slow. Try that in the editor... That doesnt meen your guys wont die but it will, or SHOULD stop them moving and doing dumb stuff until the coast is clear.

Sorry nyran125,

i miss your point. I think you know the difference between strategic and tactical choices, right? We are talking about different things here ;)

Also i never told that AI SHOULD be able to retreat, if you read me correctly i wrote i wish to have some kind of better threats evaluation.

---------- Post added at 08:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:28 PM ----------

Read just the first 2 posts, download the mission, do exactly what i did in the pics. Also, read the top post by Suma on the second page.

Ok thx i'll check it out.

However, I will argue that in the end the only sensible form of play is players versus players. ....

you play against your computer (or in coop) to the point where you think you're a master of the universe, then you go on-line and you get your ass kicked so badly that you realize you've got to learn everything from the beginning.

So my advice: ditch the AI, start fighting some real opponents.

That would be true IF you could get into the right group of players.

Trouble is finding the type of server YOU like and that's compounded by the fact that one night it may be team work next DM. Vast wasteland of nothingness out there.

And you're statement about "you get your ass kicked" leads me to believe you are one of the win at all cost players and be damned with the organization and tactical use of a squad. A tactical squad wouldn't let any player get his ass kicked as there is only a squad effort , not an individual one.

Meh. Had my fill of tards online. SP is good enough for me. Don't need to prove anything , only garner the satisfaction of completing a mission successfully.

What Arma2 AI lacks completely is a proper threat evaluation phase.

I think the real problem is a lack of defensive AI. The AI is only capable of attacking and does a reasonable job of it, but has no concept of holding a position, "digging in", or letting an enemy come to them.

What is really needed, from a player perspective, is for you to be able to tell your AI squad to "cover a particular area" or "cover from all directions" and each squad member will automatically locate a place of cover or at least concealment from which it can watch the specified location. "All directions" should result in the squad automatically splitting the 360' between themselves and then finding a position to cover their sector from. This would mean finding ridgelines, peeking out from around a wall, and so on.

That would be hard to implement, although some parts of it are already present - they have some idea of good locations to move to for cover or concealment, just no way of moving to a position where they can target a particular patch of dirt and wait for the enemy to show itself.

A massive enhancement to the game would be to allow mission makers to put down a squad of AI troops give them a "defend" waypoint at a particular location, and they'd move there and automatically take up reasonable positions that make use of whatever defensive terrain and objects are present. They really need to be able to take into account editor-placed objects as well, e.g. sandbags and bunkers.

Also some AI features are a bit ridiculous, eg. the GUARD waypoint: units with a current GUARD waypoint will attack any enemy anywhere on the map and also in the case they know they can't harm it.

Well it's more just a bad choice of name for the waypoint type, since intuitively one assumes they'd guard an area which isn't quite what it does. Should've been called "ATTACK" or something like that, and the "Guarded by" triggers should be "Attack from" or something.

I get the feeling this was something they started on because they thought it would be useful, then decided there were better ways of solving whatever they wanted to solve and it was left sort of incomplete. In particular, the fact they don't care whether they can harm the enemy decreases its usefulness.

Scrub, I'm not sure I even understand what you're trying to say. Arma2 is loaded with bugs, and some very basic ones - even three months after the release. Some of them (like the "mouse lag") actually prevent people from playing at all, even if their rigs fit in the minimal requirements (my case). But, as I said, this is no place for this discussion, there's plenty of other threads.

BeerHunter, I admit I would probably be a crappy squad member - simply because I have little experience in combat cooperation (never been a clan member or anything). And besides, I don't spend much time playing computer games.

That said, when I do play as a member of a larger team on-line (like in Crysis), I always join the loosing side, because I like to make a contribution and shift the balance. Joining with the winners is good for losers, because in the end someone else wins for you. So much for win-at-all-cost.

some kind of guy there is a BIS_Function defend which works quite well on a group.

They move into the area and even man empty Machine Guns, I haven't seen them run after the enemy.

The Guard waypoint is a difficult one to grasp and I don't think Guard is the best word to describe it.

As with ArmA and with OFP AI can be modded to have variety of reaction ways to enemy threats. Sure not all flaw can't be taken away but most basic. Such as willingness to rush and get killed without thinking. That however requires something, which means scripting more or less complicated scripts.

I in ArmA as in OFP needed few minutes (or hours) of scripting per missions to get combat behaviour suit my and mission's needs. Be that fearless charge at machineguns or cautious and slow taking advancing which could mean that against strong opponent attack got bogged down for hours! They could break and retreat easily, use various enagagement methods from flanking as unit to platoon based bounding overwatch directly against enemy. I am able to get them to form defensive formations which have some (proved) value. Heck i even scripted limbing dynamically working urban tactics for securing streets and using of building walls for AI (which sucked terrible about of CPU and didnt' work well as i lack scripting-macigz and -skillz). So think BIS game is quite flexible in that sense, modders can do lots of things. And i think that lots of AI related potential which can be done by scripting and modding has not been used or studied. Dunno is it so, i don't interact with other modders at all.

However... I got fed up to start scripting (or using ready scripts) those things into mission EVERY time i made missions. Seems that same story would continue with ArmA2... Blah... I don't have energy anymore for that, i want things more easily.

So there. Or not. Dunno.

I'm a bit disapointed by the fact that the AI still has no battlefield assesment, still flank in single numbers and still don't pop in and out of cover(sandbags).

some kind of guy there is a BIS_Function defend which works quite well on a group.

They move into the area and even man empty Machine Guns, I haven't seen them run after the enemy.

Thanks, I hadn't encountered that. Has jumped to the top of my list of things to check out. Cheers!

So I was flying my UAV on Arma 2 OA and after setting a waypoint it just kept going round the waypoint in circles untill I put the way point next to it... also it kept spinning when I was trying to laze a target (Undetected as well)

Not sure that needed a thread necro.. but hey.

I like the fact that:

1 - this thread is started by Fabrizio

2 - it's pretty much the same issues as now

:p